JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This is an application filed by the State u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Code of Criminal Procedure") challenging the orders passed by the Courts below directing release of truck bearing registration No. ORJ-6656 in favour of the opposite party No. 5 Dasarathi Rout. 2. The facts given in the present case is that on 28.11.1988 while the truck in question was carrying 27 pieces of Sal logs, the same was seized by the Inspector of Police, Anandapur Police Station. No valid transit permission could be produced on demand as required under the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 for transportation of the said logs, as a result of which the S.I. of Police, Anandapur police station not only seized the truck and sal logs but also registered a case against the opposite parties under Sees. 379/363/144/44, I.P.C.read with Section 46 and 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and the same has been numbered as G.R. Case No. 326/88 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Anandapur. 3. The present opposite party No. 5 filed an application on 6.12.1988 u/s 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the truck in question in his favour on the ground that he is the registered owner of the truck hypothecated under an agreement with the State Bank of India, Anandapur and if the truck is kept in open, there is possibility of damage to the vehicle. The said petition was taken up for hearing by the learned S.D.J.M. on 7.1.1989 and relying on the decision of this Court reported In Vol. Sarat Kumar Malu Vs. State of Orissa, the learned S.D.J.M. directed release of the truck in favour of the opposite party No. 5. 4. Against the said order, the State carried a revision vide Criminal Revision No. 3/89 before the court of Sessions Judge, Keonjhar and the said revision was dismissed by order dated 9.7.1989 relying on the decisions of this Court reported in 1988 (I) OLR 116: (1988) 1 OCR 116, (Srinibels Panda v. State of Orissa). 5. 4. Against the said order, the State carried a revision vide Criminal Revision No. 3/89 before the court of Sessions Judge, Keonjhar and the said revision was dismissed by order dated 9.7.1989 relying on the decisions of this Court reported in 1988 (I) OLR 116: (1988) 1 OCR 116, (Srinibels Panda v. State of Orissa). 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the State has raised only one point challenging the orders passed by the Courts below and stated that the Divisional Forest Officer having intimated the learned S.D.J.M. about initiation of the Confiscation Proceeding under the provisions of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 prior to the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and release the truck in favour of the opposite party No. 5. 6. From the records, I find that the petition for release of the truck was filed by the Opposite party No. 5 on 6.12.1988 and the D.F.O., Keonjhar Division intimated the learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur in his letter dated 6.1.1989 that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated u/s 56 of the Orissa Forest Act; 1972. On 7.1.1989 the impugned order releasing the truck in favour of the opposite party No. 5 has been passed by the learned S.D.J.M.. Anandapur. 7. In the present case, there is no dispute that the truck in question was seized by the S.I. of Police, Anandapur Police Station and information of seizure was given to the learned Magistrate. This Court in the decisions reported in Sarat Kumar Malu Vs. State of Orissa, has held that when any forest produce together with the vehicle used in committing any forest offence is seized by any Forest Officer in exercise of his powers u/s 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, then the power to release the property seized lies with the authorities prescribed in the four corners of the provisions of the Forest Act and not with a Magistrate in exercise of his powers under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court in another decision reported in (1988) I OLR 116 has held that when a seizure is made by the Police Officer and not by a Forest Officer, application for release of the vehicle would lie before the Magistrate and the Magistrate shall exercise jurisdiction and shall have powers to pass such order, as deemed just and proper in exercise of power under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure In the present case, admittedly the truck and the sal logs were seized by the Police Officer and intimation thereof was given to the learned S.D.J.M.. Anandapur. Therefore, undoubtedly the learned S.D.J.M. has jurisdiction to deal with the application u/s 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and pass orders. In my opinion, the Magistrate did not lack jurisdiction only because a proceeding u/s 56 of the Orissa Forest Act had been initiated and that the same had been intimated to the learned S.D.J.M. Very fact that the seizure was made by the Police Officer, appropriate authority to deal with release of the seized vehicle was the learned S.D.J.M. and not the Forest Officer designated under the Forest Act. 8. Learned Counsel for the State has cited a decision of this Court passed in Criminal Revision No. 606/88 disposed of on 6.1.1989. In the said case, question involved in this case has not been decided and therefore relying on the decisions reported in Sarat Kumar Malu Vs. State of Orissa, and (1988) I OLR 166, it can be safely held that no illegality has been committed by the Courts below in dealing with the question of release of the truck. 9. I find no merit in this Criminal Misc. Case and the same is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed